The hearing followed Bora’s detention at Mandi House during a protest on October 16. After hearing the parties for more than 2.5 hours, Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved the verdict and said the order would be pronounced on Friday at 6 pm.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma referred to certain material, including a joint press conference attended by Bora, in which a statement on regime change had been made.
Appearing for Bora, senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan submitted, “There is nothing wrong in regime change in a democracy”.
Objecting to the submission, the ASG said regime change could happen through “votes” and not through “lumpen elements in the nerve of New Delhi”.
Bora has challenged an October 17 notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 135(3) of the BNSS.
Section 126 empowers a Magistrate to require an individual to show cause why a bond for keeping the peace should not be executed if the Magistrate receives information that the person is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Section 130 provides that when a Magistrate acting under Section 126, 127, 128 or 129 considers it necessary to require a person to show cause, the Magistrate must issue a written order specifying the prescribed particulars.
Under Section 135(3), a Magistrate may, for reasons recorded in writing, direct a person against whom an order under Section 130 has been made to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry. The provision also allows the Magistrate to detain the person in custody until the bond or bail bond is executed or, if it is not executed, until the inquiry is concluded.
The proviso states that where no proceedings are taken against a person under Sections 127, 128 or 129, that person shall not be directed to execute a bond or bail bond for maintaining good behaviour.
Through her petition, Bora has sought the quashing of the notice and the proceedings arising from it. She has also sought a direction restraining the authorities from taking coercive action against her.
According to the petition, Bora had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16 to unfurl the national flag at Central Park in Connaught Place as part of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner.
She alleged that she was detained at around 5:30 pm, taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently brought to R.K. Puram Police Station. She claimed that she was held overnight and released at 6 am on October 17.
Bora received the notice on October 18. It cited alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and the allegation that she had instigated people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place on October 16.
The petition contends that the notice does not disclose any material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace, which it describes as a necessary precondition for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the petitioner along with advocates Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol, Moksha Sharma, Ayan Dasgupta, Gurupal Singh, Kartik Venu, Vishal Sinha, Kanishk Garg, Indumugi C and Aayushman Aggarwal.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appeared for the respondent along with Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit.
The High Court’s forthcoming order will determine Bora’s challenge to the preventive proceedings and the notice requiring her to furnish a bond to maintain peace during the inquiry.
About The Author
Comment List